Let’s debate Climate Change

At the time I wished to become an approved UKIP candidate I was encouraged to go to a training session run by Tom Rubython (PPC for Northampton South) together with his friend who embarrassingly I cannot now name. For my two-minute talk I chose Global Warming quite expecting them both to be enthusiastic climate sceptics. To my great surprise the friend was an AGW, (anthropogenic Global Warming) believer. Both advised me to NOT to do a talk on global warming as this might not be in the party’s interest.

Thereafter I have been as circumspect about this in UKIP circles as others were about immigrants. Yet I personally feel that the present stance by successive governments since the Climate Change Act of 2008 under Tony Blair, when Ed Miliband became Sectary of State for Energy & Climate Change and the requirement in the act for no new coal fired power stations to be built in the UK without carbon capture and storage has been as damaging to the UK economy as the regulations of the EU.

No other country in the World has adopted such a restrictive stance and put it into law. Together with the environmental campaigners who number less than 1% of the population we are steadily being forced to reduce and even eliminate all forms of power generation by fossil fuels. Not only this but international pressure is being put on third World countries not to invest in coal or gas fired electricity generating stations in order to supposedly save the World.

The environmental movement has for decades been searching for a cause to blame mankind for ruining the World in order to elevate their status as saviours of the planet. Also to pursue a course by which they demonise something humans do that they can control in order to force mankind into a World Government ideally controlled by themselves. I mean nothing can be more important than saving the planet and we have to be just lucky that they are the high priests that can save us.

Whilst searching for a cause there was in the 1970’s a scare that the World was heading for another ice age and that we would be unable to cope. Though I cannot remember what the cause or solution was. Then from 1977 through to 1998 the World Meteorological Organisation was pursuing the demonising of carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels as the cause of the increasing temperature at that time.

In 1998 the Hockey Stick appeared in an article in Nature by Dr Michael E Mann of the University of Massachusetts based on studies of tree ring growths of Bristle Cone Pine trees in California. Using in addition some 112 data sets from fairly recent era they were able to suggest that the results were robust enough to claim that temperature in the late 1990’s were warmer than any time since at least 1400BC.

The Hockey Stick was an amazingly powerful tool because from 1400 to 1850 it was almost flat and in the last 150 years the curve just flew upward producing a shape like a hockey stick laid down.

Since then and the efforts of Al Gore on his Worldwide travels promoting global warming we have had a number of proofs that it is happening and we are to blame;-

1. The Earth is getting warmer since the industrial revolution began in 1850.

2. The Glaciers are Melting, more today than ever before.

3. The Sea Levels are Rising and low-lying islands are getting swamped.

4. The Polar Ice Caps are Shrinking.

5. The Polar Bears are Endangered.

6. The Number & Strength of Hurricanes and Tropical Storms are Increasing.

7. Plants and Animals are becoming extinct or moving to colder climate zones.

10. Vehicles produce unacceptable amounts of CO2 and must be replaced with public transport or bicycles or electric cars.

11. Just recently in October 2016 NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) has announced that this year has been the hottest since records began.

Interestingly though in Roman times Britain and all the northern continents were warmer than they are today and grapes were grown in huge quantities in southern England.. In the middle ages the Vikings invaded a large island in the north Atlantic that had been uninhabitable for centuries due to being covered in snow and ice and started a colony there, they called it Greenland. Both these periods had temperatures for centuries warmer than we presently experience in the northern hemisphere today.

Now the Climate Change supporters are actually reworking old datasets to rewrite history to show it has always been colder than it is today, and we are to blame. Hundreds of billions of Dollars have been obtained through taxes over the past two decades to support the reduction of CO2 emissions, to support endangered communities and to save the planet.

In the 1950’s a new type of CO2 measuring system was installed on Mauna Loa in the Hawaiian Islands and has been working faithfully ever since. It has algorithms to take into account prevailing winds and vegetation absorption of CO2 on the islands so it accurately records only the CO2 around the islands from the ocean and atmosphere. Interestingly it produced a lower result at the start than expected so they actually just shifted the previous data sets to match with the start of the Mauna Loa data to create a continuous series.

Since then the CO2 level has increased steadily year on year by about 3 parts million of atmospheric gases from 250ppm in 1950’s to 400ppm today. The prediction from the general circulation models on very expensive computers was that a doubling of CO2 would produce a catastrophic rise of an average of 2 C in world temperature and indeed reach a tipping point in thermal runaway.

Well we have just reached 400ppm, which is a 60% increase in atmospheric CO2 and as far as I can tell there is no noticeable increase in summer temperature and the winters seem as bad as they have ever been. So what do you think and what do you believe?

About The Author

Antony Nailer is a Design Engineer & Author, qualified with an HNC in Electronics and BA in Physics & Mathematics. He was on the UKIP Approved Candidates List for the 2015 General Election but is now a lapsed Member.

Climate change, as it is now called, is steadily dropping down the list of concerns of most voters. Whether that is because they believe the alarmists have already saved the planet so there is no more to be done or whether it means people just don’t care because there is evidently no cause for alarm is not clear.

Personally I would like UKIP to stick to its core business of Brexit rather than spread its meagre resources into other areas of policy.

Mrs May is making a meal of Brexit end unnecessarily exposing UK to risk by prolonging membership in order to slide without a break from full to associate membership. That is not what we voted for and in my opinion will be disastrous. All she is doing is what Cameron said he would do in his Bloomberg speech but with the backing a a referendum result to give her a bit more clout. It is not good enough and only UKIP can hold her feet to the fire.

Peter & David, the problem about the use of fossil fuels for power generation in the UK is probably the most significant issue after leaving the EU.

If you wish to pursue a single issue without UKIP moving forward to become more than a pressure group then Arron Banks is pushing Leave.eu to all people on the UKIP mailing list, and is looking for your support.

I doubt we will get a clean break with the EU as Theresa May is looking for the best fudge to try and prevent the Europhiles from wrecking the Conservatives electoral chances again.

I do hope that ultimately she will come to her senses and realise that a fudge satisfies no-one and stokes the fires of dissent on both sides of the argument.

If though the EU do as I expect and reject the deal worked out by 2019 and she does the sensible thing and just walks away, then if UKIP has no other policies on the table we have no purpose in the run up to the 2020 general election.

We are really back to the point;- Do we wish to be only the pressure group for leaving, as was Nigel’s sole purpose? or, Do we wish to put together other policies on issues that are not being tackled by the other mainstream parties?

It’s a another scam on a global scale in part to foster globalist policies via the United Nations. An idea cooked up years ago as one of several common factors that might encouraging international relations. Common fear factors Here are some of them.
1/ Alien invasions 2/ catastrophic climate change 3/ Environment 4/pollution 5/overpopulation 6/over-fishing 7/ deforestation 8/ Asteroid or comet impact

Most of these policies are coming straight of the United Nations, like Agenda 21/30, in our case adopted by the EU and then passed onto member states of the EU unchallenged. It has become quite a gravy train for thousands of climate scientists to keep them slurping away at the gravy on condition that they perpetuate the myth of manmade global warming and other UN policies. Whole careers, reputations and egos are at stake here to keep this global con on track. Anyone suspected of derailing this has his gravy taken away their career is over for them.
This is more than just a new religion, this is a global cartel and cabal by international socialists to defraud the taxpayers and destroy Western civilization through the destruction of it industrial capabilities literally sending us into the dark ages.
All with the tacid consent of politicians.

Just a thought where did all this GW business kick off?
I seem to remember there was a hoo-ha about the depletion of the Ozone layer and so they got rid of CFC`s.
In the mid 1980`s I saw a programme put out I think on BBC which depicted Sutherland in Scotland , which is pretty sparsely populated, They said “would you believe this area was populated by 300,000 people 3000 years ago – what happened to them?”
The answer was given as “Acid Rain” apparently they could prove by snow cores or something that pollution from Icelandic volcanoes had drifted Southwards and caused acid rain which devastated the area.
Apparently some volcanoes are recognised as “Dirty” ones – the particles apparently staying in the upper levels of the atmosphere for long periods – The Icelandic one is one such and there`s another one on the west coast of US/Canada.-They`ve been at it for millions of years.
I was at an event where I met a German Geologist and he confirmed the truth of the BBC programme.
About this time the Continentals were having a moan on about acid rain caused by pollution from our coal burning power stations causing great damage to continental forests.
I believe this whole global warming concept emanated from our friendly EU or at least they jumped on to the whole crazy idea, which fell in with their whole crazy world government idea. (Oh yes we all knew about that in 1962 – I was writing to my wife to be from my ship on the Atlantic Ocean replying to her enquiry of “what did I think about this Common Market?” – we kept our love letters!)

Roger, acid rain is just one consequence of emitting sulphur dioxide from any burning process. The other of course is sulphuric acid created in the upper atmosphere. We get smog from low level sulphur dioxide and acid rain from upper atmosphere sulphur dioxide. Probably all industrial burning processes in Europe now include sulphur dioxide removal from the effluent. Not so though in China where they had to close down huge parts of industry in the run up to the Beijing Olympics to get rid of the dangerously poor quality air.

I thank you all for your comments. I would also consider myself well versed in the science of the climate and was till recently a member of the ClimateSceptics discussion group on Yahoo for well over a decade. I am hoping to engage with those who are either undecided or take the establishment view.

The total solar irradiance of our planet is not a constant and varies over decadal and centenial periods affected by the gravitation pulls of its planets and the rotation of the Solar System in its orbit around the centre of the Galaxy.

The sunspot cycle itself is due to the centre of gravity of the Sun either leading or lagging within the centre of gravity of the mass of the Solar System. Global rainfall is directly proportional to the sunspot cycle and previous cycles can be traced from effects of the flows in the great rivers of the World.

Fortunately the World is a water planet and the the rate of evaporation from the tropical oceans is directly affected by temperature and the rising saturated water extracts latent heat from the oceans to the top of the troposphere thereby providing negative feedback that keeps global temperatures within a fairly narrow range.

CO2 is a trace gas within the atmosphere with typically 1/20th of the quantity of water vapour. Its effects of absorption of several narrow bands of electromagnetic energy at densities of 100ppm or more occur within 20 metres of the Earths surface. Increasing the density only slightly reduces the saturation height. CO2 is unable to store heat and passes it on in collisions with other atmospheric molecules in less than 1/1000th of a nanosecond.

On the other hand droplets of water are capable of storing heat in the atmosphere for periods ranging from 10 to 30 days. There is only one other compound found is significant quantity in the atmosphere that can be gas or liquid at normal near surface temperatures and that is sulphur dioxide, and that is why it combines with water vapour and soot particulates to produce smog. Here endeth the first lesson.

I’d like to congratulate the writer on raising a topic on which any debate is so fiercely opposed and alternative opinions so intolerantly condemned by the alarmists.
Anyone with any open mind might like to listen to the recent excellent lecture on this topic by Matt Ridley at the Royal Society (link below). You might notice Stuart Agnew amongst some other familiar faces in the audience.
Alternatively, a transcript is available on the Global Warming Policy Foundation website.

You might also notice that in his introduction Lord Lawson refers to the ‘fanatics’ who angrily attacked the Royal Society for daring to allow this lecture to take place on their premises.
It seems to me that only those with very weak arguments would be so afraid of debate.
Personally, I support the view of Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who wrote in his letter of resignation from the American Physical Society in 2010:
“It is of course , the global warming scam with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Thank you, Anthony, for your article. CK has nailed it with his pithy comment.
My (uneducated) take is that climate change is the false flag to divert attention from the fact that global population growth at this rate is unsustainable.

ck, thank you for your supportive comment. I am hoping that those who are unconvinced either way, or ‘believe’ man is responsible for global warming will come forward to make clear why they are persuaded by the establishment.

Another first class article sir. Many thanks for the delight in reading it.
We are in the grip of dogooder liberals who consider themselves an elect group whose destiny is to save mankind from itself.
These milliband clones belong in the nut house and the sooner society wakes up to the need to dismiss them from their elite positions in the media and education and government the better.